The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two individuals for qualified trafficking in persons, emphasizing that consent is not a determining factor in the crime, especially when victims are minors. The ruling underscores the state’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation, reinforcing the stringent penalties for those involved in human trafficking. This decision highlights the importance of proactive measures to prevent trafficking, safeguarding potential victims before exploitation occurs.

When a Helping Hand Leads to Human Trafficking

In Candy a.k.a. Baby/Jillian Muring Ferrer v. People of the Philippines, the central issue revolves around the application of Republic Act No. 9208, also known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. Candy and Dhayme Jamuad (Nikki) were convicted of qualified trafficking in persons for recruiting and transporting several women, including minors, from Cagayan de Oro to Cebu for the purpose of prostitution. The defense argued that the women consented to travel with them, and that no actual prostitution occurred. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the elements of trafficking were sufficiently proven, and whether the convictions should stand.

The case began with an Information dated February 27, 2009, charging Candy, Nikki, and several others with qualified trafficking in persons. The charge stated that the accused recruited, transported, and maintained eight female and one male individuals for purposes of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation. Seven of the victims were children, and the crime was allegedly committed by a syndicate on a large scale.

During the trial, the prosecution presented testimonies from three minor victims, AAA223042, BBB223042, and CCC223042, who detailed how Candy and Nikki recruited them under the guise of offering better-paying jobs as dancers in Cebu. The victims testified that the accused arranged and paid for their transportation, provided instructions on their expected roles, and coached them on what to say if questioned by authorities. The victims’ accounts were consistent, and they positively identified Candy and Nikki as the individuals responsible for their recruitment and transportation.

In contrast, the defense argued that Candy and Nikki were merely helping the victims find better opportunities and that the victims had willingly accompanied them to Cebu. They also claimed that they were victims themselves. Candy testified that she personally knew two of the complainants and had discussed her positive experiences in Cebu, which led the girls to ask if they could join her, subject to reimbursement for their fares. Nikki testified that she overheard the girls’ conversation about higher income in Cebu. She said that she went along because she was also interested and paid for her own fare. She denied forcing the other girls to come to Cebu with her and she never did anything wrong to them.

The Regional Trial Court found Candy and Nikki guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating RA 9208, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million Pesos each. The trial court relied on the testimonies of the three minor victims, finding their accounts credible and consistent. The court emphasized that the victims had positively identified Candy and Nikki as the ones who recruited them for club dancing and sex work. The trial court also highlighted that the offense was qualified due to the victims being minors and the crime being committed on a large scale.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications, awarding moral and exemplary damages to the complainants. The appellate court held that all the elements of the crime of trafficking in persons were duly established under Section 4(a), in relation to Sections 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208. The Court of Appeals also ruled that RA 9208 did not require that the victims be subjected to prostitution before they should be rescued by authorities.

Candy and Nikki then filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court. Candy, in G.R. No. 223042, argued that her warrantless arrest violated her constitutional rights and that the evidence obtained should be inadmissible. She claimed that accompanying someone to Cebu is not a crime and that there was no forced labor or servitude. Nikki, in G.R. No. 223769, argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the trial court’s ruling despite the lack of specificity in the Information regarding the acts under Section 4 or 5 of RA 9208 that she allegedly violated.

The Supreme Court denied both petitions. It held that the issues regarding the validity of the warrantless arrest and the sufficiency of the Information could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court emphasized that any objection involving the procedure for acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. The Court also reiterated the elements necessary for a conviction under Section 4(a) of RA 9208.

The Court clarified that Section 3(a) of RA 9208 provides the general definition of “Trafficking in Persons,” while Sections 4 and 5 outline the specific punishable acts. In essence, the successful prosecution of trafficking under Section 4(a) requires: (a) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons, with or without the victim’s consent; (b) the use of means such as threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments; and (c) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, or servitude.

The Supreme Court underscored that the element of consent is not a valid defense in trafficking cases, especially when the victims are minors. The law explicitly states that trafficking can occur “with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge.” Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that the crime was only committed in its attempted stage because the victims were rescued before being subjected to prostitution. The Court clarified that RA 9208 does not require actual prostitution to occur for a conviction; the recruitment and transportation for the purpose of exploitation are sufficient.

Moreover, the Court addressed the defense that Candy and Nikki were prostitutes themselves and therefore could not be held liable for trafficking. The Court ruled that their occupation did not absolve them of criminal responsibility; in fact, it placed them in a position to facilitate the exploitation of others. The Court also found sufficient evidence of conspiracy between Candy, Nikki, and their co-accused, emphasizing that their concerted actions in recruiting, transporting, and supervising the victims indicated a common criminal design.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the actions of Candy and Nikki only constituted attempted trafficking under RA 10364, which amended RA 9208. The Court clarified that RA 10364, enacted in 2013, could not be retroactively applied to the case, as it was committed in 2008. The Court explained that RA 10364 criminalized attempted trafficking to strengthen protections for trafficked persons, not to reduce penalties for consummated offenses.

The penalty imposed by the lower courts—life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 each—was deemed appropriate, considering the crime was qualified by the fact that it was committed against nine victims, seven of whom were minors. The Court also upheld the award of moral and exemplary damages to the victims, citing People v. Lalli, which equated trafficking as a prostitute as worse than crimes like seduction, abduction, or rape. The Court ordered Candy and Nikki to jointly and severally pay each victim P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with a legal interest of six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Candy and Nikki were guilty of qualified trafficking in persons under RA 9208, despite their claims that the victims consented and were not actually prostituted.
What is the significance of consent in trafficking cases?	The Supreme Court clarified that consent is not a determining factor in trafficking cases, especially when the victims are minors who cannot legally give consent. The law explicitly states that trafficking can occur “with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge.”
Does RA 9208 require actual prostitution for a conviction?	No, the Court clarified that RA 9208 does not require actual prostitution to occur for a conviction. The recruitment and transportation of individuals for the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution, are sufficient to establish the crime.
Can someone who is a prostitute also be guilty of trafficking?	Yes, the Court ruled that the fact that Candy and Nikki were prostitutes themselves did not absolve them of criminal responsibility. Their occupation placed them in a position to facilitate the exploitation of others, making them liable under RA 9208.
What penalties did Candy and Nikki receive?	Candy and Nikki were each sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00. They were also ordered to jointly and severally pay each of the victims P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
What is qualified trafficking in persons?	Qualified trafficking in persons occurs when the trafficked person is a child or when the crime is committed by a syndicate or on a large scale. These circumstances increase the severity of the crime and result in harsher penalties.
What is the difference between RA 9208 and RA 10364?	RA 9208 is the original Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, while RA 10364, enacted in 2013, amended RA 9208 to strengthen protections for trafficked persons. RA 10364 criminalized attempted trafficking, but it was not applied retroactively to this case.
What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction for trafficking?	To secure a conviction for trafficking, the prosecution must prove the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons; the use of means such as threat, force, coercion, or taking advantage of vulnerability; and the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation.
Why were moral and exemplary damages awarded to the victims?	Moral and exemplary damages were awarded to compensate the victims for the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and social humiliation they experienced as a result of being trafficked. The damages also serve as a deterrent against future trafficking offenses.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and reinforces the stringent penalties for those involved in human trafficking. This ruling ensures that perpetrators are held accountable and that victims receive the necessary support and compensation to rebuild their lives.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CANDY A.K.A. BABY/JILLIAN MURING FERRER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 223042, July 06, 2022